[20] It is, however, not improbable that Rusticiano's hasty and
abbreviated original was extended by a scribe who knew next to nothing
of French; otherwise it is hard to account for such forms as
perlinage (pelerinage), peseries (espiceries), proque (see vol.
ii. p. 370), oisi (G.T. p. 208), thochere (toucher), etc. (See
Bianconi, 2nd Mem. pp. 30-32.)
[21] Polo, Friar Odoric, Nicolo Conti, Ibn Batuta.
X. VARIOUS TYPES OF TEXT OF MARCO POLO'S BOOK.
[Sidenote: Four Principal Types of Text. First, that of the Geographic, or
oldest French.]
55. In treating of the various Texts of Polo's Book we must necessarily go
into some irksome detail.
Those Texts that have come down to us may be classified under Four
principal Types.
I. The First Type is that of the Geographic Text of which we have already
said so much. This is found nowhere complete except in the unique MS. of
the Paris Library, to which it is stated to have come from the old Library
of the French Kings at Blois. But the Italian Crusca, and the old Latin
version (No. 3195 of the Paris Library) published with the Geographic
Text, are evidently derived entirely from it, though both are considerably
abridged. It is also demonstrable that neither of these copies has been
translated from the other, for each has passages which the other omits,
but that both have been taken, the one as a copy more or less loose, the
other as a translation, from an intermediate Italian copy.[1] A special
difference lies in the fact that the Latin version is divided into three
Books, whilst the Crusca has no such division.
